Are you talking about standard 30-pieces of silver fare or the Gospel of Judas?
In any event, I don't understand your point.
LDS Church fined for contributions to Prop 8!! HA!
- Thread starter KatieMCR
- Start date
Are you talking about standard 30-pieces of silver fare or the Gospel of Judas?
In any event, I don't understand your point.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
You said that if you were a member, and if Buttars was recently called to be a bishop, it would "shake" your faith. Basically, my point is, by no means is anyone perfect and you can't judge a whole based off the actions of one person, like Buttars. Buttars is undoubtedly a moron beyond epic powers, but even in the unimaginable event that he was called a bishop, it wouldn't shake my faith. My point with Judas was that even an appointed apostle, called by Christ himself, betrayed him. It doesn't get any worse than that.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Kicky, have you tried to have your name removed?
Also on the whole Buttars issue I will quote an Apostle that might help: "Let me try to clarify a misconception of the church. Some believe the church is a perfect place where perfect people think perfect thoughts, and speak perfect words. This is far from the truth. The church is where imperfect people come to work on their imperfections"
Basically even if Buttars was a Bishop he has many imperfections like the rest of us. I struggle with many things but yet I am in a leadership position. I will not be the first to throw a stone at another, because I am not perfect.
Also on the whole Buttars issue I will quote an Apostle that might help: "Let me try to clarify a misconception of the church. Some believe the church is a perfect place where perfect people think perfect thoughts, and speak perfect words. This is far from the truth. The church is where imperfect people come to work on their imperfections"
Basically even if Buttars was a Bishop he has many imperfections like the rest of us. I struggle with many things but yet I am in a leadership position. I will not be the first to throw a stone at another, because I am not perfect.
A couple points:
1. The "unimaginable event" happened twice according to the documentary. I can find reference on the internet to the fact that he has twice been a bishop but I can't find any time periods. If it's the case that this was something like 30 years ago and he's warped into a twisted old man in the interim period that's one thing. If it's a recent thing that's another thing entirely which calls into question the procedure by which bishops are "called." I would have difficulty trusting an institution that endorsed Chris Buttars as a spiritual leader.
2. The Judas thing isn't a great parallel for reasons that should be of particular interest to you as a Mormon because of the whole improper translations of the bible thing. There are competing texts dating back to the first and second century indicating that Judas' betrayal may have been part of the divine plan. Some interpretations indicate that Judas may actually have been Jesus' most loyal follower, the only one who he could trust to carry out the horrible act of ensuring his crucifixion. If you believe that the crucifixion was necessary for the redemption of all mankind, and that this redemption was part of God's plan, this interpretation has some obvious traction. Unless, of course, you're a Calvinist.
3. I was under the impression that the selection of ward and stake leaders was supposed to be divinely inspired, a result of prayer and communication with God. If Buttars was called to be a bishop then either a) God doesn't find Buttars' Buttarsness to be a disqualifier or b) whoever's doing the praying and communicating is getting the message pretty seriously screwed up. I'm not real comfortable with what either result says about the Church.
Why bother? It doesn't affect my life any.
I don't think saying Buttars shouldn't be a spiritual leader is demanding perfection, or even the ballpark of perfection. Frankly, unless this was a pretty seriously screwed up ward I can't imagine he'd be in the top 100 most-qualified candidates even in his limited geographical area.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
The point you are not understanding is that our "faith" is not in church leaders and the decisions they make. It is in Christ and His teachings. If a fellow Bishops remarks or actions makes you question what you believe in. Well then there probably wasn't much there for you anyways.
I would think that this would be fairly obvlous to you since you were a former member.
Come on bean. At least one person in the organization is tasked with receiving revelation directly from God. The church claims a monopoly on having such revelation. Church leaders are "called" through a process that is purportedly divinely inspired. To act like the leadership of the church is completely irrelevant is kind of ridiculous.
The idea that anything would be "obvious" to me because I have some knowledge of the church is also sort of insulting as it presupposes the truth value of the initial assertion. Since I am no longer a member, maybe it should occur to you that I question some of the church's teachings. The idea that the doctrine is completely separate from the people preaching and interpreting that doctrine is flatly denied by my experience and a contradiction in terms given the community aspects of church-going and the inevitable scriptual interpretation that takes place within wards. To pretend that the Bishop isn't seen as a moral authority in a ward is practically willful blindness. The bishop is explicitly given priesthood "keys" that authorize him to serve as a representative of the Lord in performing his duties.
In any event, your statements strike me as overly apologetic and simply parroting the church's constant invocations to remain with the church even if you hate everyone in your ward. Obviously, it's an argument that I've empirically found unpersuasive.
The idea that anything would be "obvious" to me because I have some knowledge of the church is also sort of insulting as it presupposes the truth value of the initial assertion. Since I am no longer a member, maybe it should occur to you that I question some of the church's teachings. The idea that the doctrine is completely separate from the people preaching and interpreting that doctrine is flatly denied by my experience and a contradiction in terms given the community aspects of church-going and the inevitable scriptual interpretation that takes place within wards. To pretend that the Bishop isn't seen as a moral authority in a ward is practically willful blindness. The bishop is explicitly given priesthood "keys" that authorize him to serve as a representative of the Lord in performing his duties.
In any event, your statements strike me as overly apologetic and simply parroting the church's constant invocations to remain with the church even if you hate everyone in your ward. Obviously, it's an argument that I've empirically found unpersuasive.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Do you know what Buttars was like 30 years ago? I don't. Also, just out of curiosity, have you ever read the bible? Just wondering, cause you seem to make it like everyone that has ever been called to any position has never done anything wrong, or have never been a complete moron. Have you ever heard of Lot? lol
I look at it as a parable more than a parallel. Although, you make good points, I think there are many things people can get out of it, just like the one I previously stated. To deny that is like saying the scriptures cant be interrupted different ways by different people.
Again, people can make mistakes. Sometimes people are called to positions by inspirations, sometimes they're not. It's not my place to say whether they were or weren't. Goes back to the basic teaching of Christ that no one is perfect.
EDIT: With all this being said, I don't want to get in a religious debate. Let's just leave it at this, or if you want, you can respond. I'm just going to be done. hehe
Last edited:
That was my point. You and I agree here. I was asking because I'm fully aware that he could have been a completely different person several decades ago.
Seriously Archie? I thought we were having a real conversation here. Needless to say, I feel pretty comfortable with my knowledge of the Bible as well as several translation, apocrypha, and interpretation debates that I find particularly interesting (the Judas scenario being one; a previous thread on gay marriage and the meaning of the sin of Gomorrah being another).
What does this mean? Is there a way to become a bishop other than being "called?"
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
I was asking the bible question in all seriousness, though after rereading it, I see how it seems condescending. Sorry.
If you would like to continue, I would rather do it via pm. Thanks.
If you would like to continue, I would rather do it via pm. Thanks.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
#1 In the Articles of Faith it says that were are not accountable for "Adams transgressions" this also means we have no part in anybody else's shortcomings or sins. In or outside of the church. I have no judgement or ill feelings towards anyone's problems or weakness's. Only that they can overcome them and better themselves.
#2 Someone who is a Bishop or in leadership I believe are called by revelation. But that does not guarentee the person is worthy or will succeed in that position. Many times its a chance for a person to step up to plate and take on responsibilty. Thus it will help them grow. If a person is called but is not worthy it is a wake up call to repent.
#3 I believe there are many more worthy or better candidates for positions I have held. From being a youth, mission..etc. But that is not how the church is run. Your idea that the holiest person in the ward is Bishop is extremely off.
#4 Do you believe that Christians should question Jesus for calling Judas as an apostle or David to build the temple...or all the other Biblical and BOM prophets and church leaders who have slipped up or failed. I would believe you are smarter than this and it really seems like I am teaching a primary lesson.
Wow. Just wow. I don't even know what to say here. That you followed this up by saying I needed a primary lesson is amazing.
Do yourself a favor bean, look up what that particular article of faith is about and what Christian concept it is a direct response to. To claim it means that you shouldn't discern at all whether or not someone is a fit spiritual leader is so off-the-wall crazy I don't even know how to respond.
So if the Thomas Monson died and Buttars was called to be the prophet you'd be ok with this?
We agree.
I've already discussed Judas in this thread. I also think there's a particular theme that runs throughout the Bible and the BoM regarding those who attain material and spiritual success and how they fall away from the church and God's plan after that success is attained. The present church has achieved material success and appears to believe that it is immune from the cycle. I'm somewhat disturbed the inerrancy theory you seem to be espousing.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Thanks for supporting the LDS church's school. You are the biggest homer I have seen. Also I am making a tuna sandwich for lunch. Let me know if you would like a slice. Its probably fresher tuna than you are used to.
For those keeping track at home, Beantown in a single post 1) equated what he's saying with the views of the entire LDS church, implying he speaks for the church and 2) insulted Trout's wife.
Now THAT's missionary work.
I am the biggest homer? What does my support of BYU have to do with anything? Way to continue to do disservice to LDS people the world over. Are you related to Buttars by chance?
Also, off topic, I've decided that I HATE the Indians.
It doesn't surprise me that's the practical reality, but it would personally bother me that the church behaves like a political entity rather than a spiritual one. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong here, but a "calling" comes from someone with authority who holds the priesthood and acts in their capacity as a priesthood holder. Given that the priesthood, as a concept, gives the holder the authority to act in God's name it seems to logically follow that a "call" from the priesthood is a call from God.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Wow Kicky really?.....Again like I said...its like teaching a primary lesson. Learn how the church's leadership is structured. This way you won't look as dumb when you spew this crap.
Also the church sustains ALL of its leaders twice a year. There is ample oppertunites if you dont feel a person is doing a good job or not fit for a specific leadership role.
Kicky, I dont think you are able to seperate being cautious of leaders being called and having something "shake your faith". Faith in the church is not based on leaders. I dont worship Monson or Joseph Smith. I am sorry that you have a misinformed view about this. Now I understand more why you have left it.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
I am the biggest homer? What does my support of BYU have to do with anything? Way to continue to do disservice to LDS people the world over. Are you related to Buttars by chance?
Also, off topic, I've decided that I HATE the Indians.
Its cool, just more for me. I love my sexy Indian wife and the free money we get from her tribe each month.